Democrats more patriotic than Republicans

You are correct on all points. Capitol expenditures in manufacturing are considered an investment with a great deal of due diligence involved in the purchasing process. What is commonly referred to as a loss of consumer confidence is also true in the industrial world. An ebb and flow occurs naturally with peaks and valleys of activity. It is also a market like any other subject to supply and demand but the end of 2008 was different than anything that took place in the previous 3 decades. Confidence, for lack of a better term was at a low point, then a series of negative events (Lehman Bros. failure etc.) hammered prevailing attitudes towards making capitol expenditures. Financing dried up for a time, most purchasing and expansion plans were put on hold.

Large deals have long lead times. The one deal I had on the books near the end of 2008, which had taken 14 months to complete was inexplicably killed by the financed company who had previously approved the financing. This left me like so many others in the same industry, simply waiting to watch overhead completely devour all existing reserves. Focus immediately shifted from pursuing the next deal to downsizing in an effort to keep the lights on. Most people just don't comprehend the dynamics involved, what this type of financial disaster entails, or even what it all means.

It's only been 3 years since the first bottom (summer 2009), . . . . do people really think this type of mess can be fixed in just 3 years?

 

I'd settle for a capable leader actually pursuing a realistic fix.

 

That unfortunately seems to be the common dilemma faced by voters in every election I have ever witnessed in my 40+ years of being an eligible voter. Who is going to deliver? Which one of the two imperfect choices is the most capable of addressing the most pressing issues?

I do not envy my American brethren, they have a tough voting decision ahead of them. Is the candidate from a traditionally business friendly party which is currently in a rebuilding phase going to accomplish this? Or is the experience gained by an incumbent president who has had mixed results with his initiatives and who has disappointed on a number of fronts more likely to succeed?

That must be a tough decision.

 

Its not a tough decision for 90% of Americans. 45% of the left will pull the lever for Obama no matter what. He could be found having sex with a young boy and they would still vote for him.

35% of the right will pull the lever for Romney on the same type of principals. 10% of the rest are so stupid, they will wait to see who does a better job of smearing the other, or find out which spokesperson of our "impartial" media makes a more persuasive argument by means of his/her "journalism".

The other 10% who actually know something about the issues and would vote either way based on being informed about the issues are likely voting for Romney. Obama doesn't even have a plan to deal with this mess on his party platform. His platform is entirely about driving fear of what Romney/Ryan might do on social issues.

In summary, the fate of this pivotal election is in the hands of the uninformed,wishy,washy 10% who vote with their emotions based on which way the wind blows. Ain't it grand?

 

Therein is where I disagree. I've been around roughly as long as you. I've voted republican in the past though I clearly as seen through my commentary tend toward the Democrats.

Today's GOP is nothing like the party of old, that tended to back business interests. Today's GOP is radical extremist on personal issues...but on economic issues it is very different from the party of the past. It is not the party of business interests. It is a party of some "partnered business interests and the extreme wealthy. It is frankly aligned against many business interests.

Gomeza: You have seen some of it first hand with your knowledge of the automotive industry and the automotive parts industry.

Not only did the GOP oppose the auto loans, they have articulated on a regular basis for Americans to not buy GM and Chrysler cars. How many independent automotive parts manufacturers would that put out of business? What percentage of that industry would go belly up with that "mandate" or GOP oriented perspective?

How does that industry receive "favor" from the party that "traditionally supported business"?

We have over a decade of low taxes. It has favored none but the extremely wealthy. GOP policies are dividing the nation into have's and have nots. The GOP strongly favors the haves.

The decade plus era of low taxes has not spurred the economy, relatively speaking. It is not "business friendly" in that regard. It is wealth friendly. Enormous difference.

Plenty of industries are shunned by the GOP to favor a select few allies. The oil industry is the pet and ally of the GOP.

That isn't business friendly....that is oil industry friendly.

GOP theorists developed the American concept of the individual mandate with regard to health care back as far as '91 and later further developed it during the early Clinton years. That is pure historical GOP.

Now the current GOP attacks it with a viciousness....wraps the Affordable Care Act, around Obama's name and attacks it viciously.

That Act represents distinctively GOP perspectives. The current party has no connection to it in any way. That isn't a party reforming itself. Its a radical party.

The current party is attached and pledged to fight any tax increase at all. There is nothing on the table from the current GOP to reform any tax codes that would increase taxes in any way, if only by eliminating tax breaks at those that benefit the most and have the highest incomes.

NOTHING. That is extreme.

This GOP in the legislature forced the lowering of US debt ratings. That is as unbusiness like as any action taken by anyone at any time. Its pure business STUPID. Here is what it means: Screw up your country...Pay higher interest rates. It was avoidable. There is nothing traditional business in that perspective at all.

Describing the changes in the GOP as a "rebuilding phrase" is a terrible choice of words IMHO. Its a party dominated by some corporate interests on one end, hugely already wealthy on another end, and extreme social religious restrictive elements on another end.

That is a hijacking of common sense of a party.

 

In this case you should be happy that a true Republican is winning the Presidential race.

 

And I thought I was old. Earl, I've figured out your problem. Senility is setting in. Your post is nothing but a factless rant of Democrat talking points, mixed with a few outright lies. I especially liked this one.

The GOP says don't buy GM? Really? I would LOVE to see the article with any official GOP spokesperson articulating those words. I personally don't buy GM for a myriad of reasons, corrupt crony capitalism being one of them, but one could hardly call me the official spokesperson of the GOP. As far as opposing the GM bailout (or what you call "loans"), I think everyone should be against bailouts, despite their necessity now and again. Are you telling me you were a big fan of the bank bailouts under Bush, and then Obama? There were many outspoken critics on the left and the right.

GM went through what was essentially a managed bankruptcy, except our president stepped in to fill the role of the court, deciding who would get paid, what would get sold, etc, etc, etc. That is corruption. Perhaps you are saying the Democrats are the party of corruption? It sounds demagogic, but not highly inaccurate.

Really? The Bush tax cuts didn't help the middle class or the poor? They were only tax cuts for the wealthy? Really?

The party isn't reforming itself, it is being reformed. There is a difference

I'm guessing you haven't even looked at the most recent book by Bob Woodward, the guy who brought down President Nixon. Its worth a look. Here is Woodward talking to Diane Sawyer about the book:

And here are some excepts talking about just how far the Republicans were willing to go to raise taxes

Long story short, your loser and chief had a debt deal with taxes negotiated, and decided to abort it and bring this nation to the brink to avoid having to talk about the debt during election year. I can't think of a more selfish thing for this pathetic man to have done.

This, mind you, coming from a guy who has likely never voted for a Republican in his life. I was watching CSPAN with the CEO of Whole Foods saying much of the same thing, and he opened his statement with, "I have proudly, on principal, NEVER voted for a Republican in my life". This was the preface of a long and detailed explanation of exactly how inept our sitting president is.

 

earlpearl: . . . my characterizations of the 2 major US political parties were simply an attempt to be diplomatic.

 

Wow... Earlier, I heard a couple of guys talking about how Obama was a "great public speaker"..

HILARIOUS !! LOL !!!!!!

 

Liberals have a great way to twist reality to suit their needs .

 

Funny pic.The second man at my wedding is a hard core liberal. His wife, who I went to high school with, is a member of the local teachers union.

I used to joke about setting up a little shrine to Obama inside my house, where I could lay some incense and offerings, but she did me one better. She got some new body art on her back, with a ribbon underneath it that reads "Si se puede". True story.

 

Look, wise-ass, the information you claim is valuable to me. It's not personal. If it happened, I need to know.

I wouldn't expect you to. Look, I disagree with Earl on a lot of things but when he starts talking real estate, I listen because based solely on his past instructive posts I respect this views on the subject.

That WSJ cite is exactly what I'm looking for. Thank you.

Now, stop taking offense where none was offered. In a forum like this it's unrealistic to expect people to automatically take your word for it unless you've already shown some experience and knowledge. You can't demand credibility - it has to be given to you.

You are describing the Obama Presidency. Look, he talks like a liberal but can you deny that he's given more financial advantages to the wealthy than any U.S. President in history?

When you look at President Obama's attitudes and policies (and lack of action) towards Wall Street, it's easy to label him with your stereotypical "GOP radical extremist" definition, right?

Basically, if you just ignore the crap that comes out of any politician's mouth, the United States has one political party. This party has a Republican PR machine and a Democratic PR machine, but THE POLICIES THEY IMPLEMENT are identical. Both love war and deficit spending.

Bill Clinton made a comment last year that in the internet age the skills required to be ELECTED Presidential are very different from the skills needed to BE President. I'm not saying Obama is a bad president, but the argument could be made that he is a victim of a political system that allowed an inexperienced man with no executive or managerial experience to become President.

 

Maybe you are right, how silly of me to take offense (becoming annoyed is more accurate) at someone posting something such as the following:

The first quote is nothing more than partisan drivel, not only in its downright inaccuracies but also in what it attempts to imply, all while ignoring reality.

The reality is that the current president of the USA took office in the midst of the worst economic slowdown since the great depression. The crisis began before he was elected and continued with frightening momentum past his inauguration date and well into his first year in office before bottoming out. The fallout from this economic disaster was not even clear during his first year in office, businesses only began to take stock of their situation and react (by downsizing or closing) in the 24 months or so after this bottom. Comparing the unemployment rate at the beginning of his presidency to today is therefore an irrelevant comparison.

As for his spending, you should look that up before throwing numbers around. A great deal of that spending was committed to by the previous administration. While there is no denying that he has increased spending, how else does a government stimulate recovery from a deep recession?

But the big question is this: How is it that so many people are like you and do not have a realistic idea of how bad things really are and what of the current administrations efforts have worked in staving off a full scale depression? Especially when all of the information is so readily available? . . . then you speak of credibility . . . . really?

Following is a graph to compare to those on the Wall Street Journal link provided earlier:
The first image illustrates the decline of GDP from 1929 onwards and how long it took GDP to recover to similar levels.


The next image shows the spike in unemployment after the crash and how it continued over the next few years at the beginning of the great depression.


Where admittedly the 1929 market crash and ensuing great depression are not perfect analogies for what is happening today, a great number of similar dynamics exist when compared to the 2008 financial crisis. After the depth and severity of both events, the most relevant of these is how the economy has a lag time between negative events and the results of those events.

 

Why the frak when you liberal try to make a point you always post walls of text ? It's like you're deliberately trying to sound sophisticated . Can't you tell you're going against the rules of effective communication ?

 

@Gomeza: In your opinion, did FDR's policies prolong the depression, or hasten it's end.

 

Obviously sophisticated discussions are not for illiterate Romanians, maybe you should go to a forum for chop shop operators where you learn how to operate one without being arrested and deported from EU.

 

Sounds like you're going places

 

Even when you change my post, you still don´t make sense and you are not funny but on the other hand to expect something smart from illiterate Romanian is too much of an expectation.

 

What ? No more smiles ? Are you mad little Julian ? Are you mad that you don't have a place to call home ?

 

On the election: The gap is narrowing. Gallup shows Romney is gaining. As of this week Obama 47% and Romney 46%.

Source: Gallup