• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

More effects of GW's Sellout of the Country

A

Anonymous

Guest
The End of American Capitalism?
Sounds pretty dramatic but that is the headline of a story on the front page of the Washington Post today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100903425.html?hpid=topnews
Maybe a bit exaggerated, but that the subject even comes up is amazing. None of the candidates are passing out the collected works of Marx and Lenin yet, but the next President is in for what candidates love to call (but hate to make) "tough decisions." It is far more likely that the scary phone call will come at 3 P.M. rather than 3 A.M. and will have to do with which other industries have to be nationalized to save them from going belly up.

For example, General Motors stock was off 31% to $4.76 a share yesterday. The Bush administration has turned the budget surpluses inherited from Bill Clinton into massive deficits financed by borrowing money from foreigners, especially in Asia. This means that Asian countries, especially China, own hundreds of billions of dollars worth of treasury bills. Now suppose the Chinese government decides it wants to get into the car manufacturing business so it makes a deal with Toyota, now the world's largest car manufacturer, to buy GM outright for a song and move its factories to China to be operated by Toyota but employing Chinese workers. All they keep is the U.S. dealer network and millions of American jobs are lost. If the next President nixes the purchase of GM, the Chinese sell their treasury bills and the dollar collapses. This is not science fiction any more. Which candidate is better prepared to deal with stuff like this could determine the election.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The End of American Capitalism?
Sounds pretty dramatic but that is the headline of a story on the front page of the Washington Post today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100903425.html?hpid=topnews
Maybe a bit exaggerated, but that the subject even comes up is amazing. None of the candidates are passing out the collected works of Marx and Lenin yet, but the next President is in for what candidates love to call (but hate to make) "tough decisions." It is far more likely that the scary phone call will come at 3 P.M. rather than 3 A.M. and will have to do with which other industries have to be nationalized to save them from going belly up.

For example, General Motors stock was off 31% to $4.76 a share yesterday. The Bush administration has turned the budget surpluses inherited from Bill Clinton into massive deficits financed by borrowing money from foreigners, especially in Asia. This means that Asian countries, especially China, own hundreds of billions of dollars worth of treasury bills. Now suppose the Chinese government decides it wants to get into the car manufacturing business so it makes a deal with Toyota, now the world's largest car manufacturer, to buy GM outright for a song and move its factories to China to be operated by Toyota but employing Chinese workers. All they keep is the U.S. dealer network and millions of American jobs are lost. If the next President nixes the purchase of GM, the Chinese sell their treasury bills and the dollar collapses. This is not science fiction any more. Which candidate is better prepared to deal with stuff like this could determine the election.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

OT..don't forget..in order to sell...you have to have a buyer. Unfortunately for you...that's the way free enterprise operates. Tell'em to go to hell and come back when the bonds mature. Heck they will get par for them then.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Who started the ball rolling with China?

Clinton Grants China MFN, Reversing Campaign Pledge
By Ann Devroy
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON 1994

President Clinton Thursday reversed course on China and renewed its trade privileges despite what he said was Beijing's lack of significant progress on human rights.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Vision

Well-known member
As I have stated before, we had a budget surplus (but still a large debt) and why, because we had the a Newt Gingrich Congress and President Clinton who was very willing to work with the Republicans to hammer out a decent budget.

It is amusing to see Democrats prop up that time when the truth is that the far left was none to happy about Newt and Clinton working so well together.

You realize that Newt and Clinton lowered taxes such as capital gaines right? Clinton also was integral in passing Gramm-Leach-Bliley which has lessened the impact of the current mortgage crunch. Clinton also worked with Republicans to get welfare reform passed.

Unfortunately, part of the progress from the late 90's was due to the tech bubble which was an artificial expansion of the stock market and caused the stock market crash in the fall of 2000. So nothing is perfect.


Clinton, Newt Gingrich and John Kasich worked well together, unlike you hyper partisans like Alice and AT, I am willing to give credit where credit is due, it also shows that the REAL power is in Congress.
 

fff

Well-known member
Remarkable. Are you watching A+? A rightwingnut admits we had a Federal budget surplus under Clinton. :lol:
 

Vision

Well-known member
fff said:
Remarkable. Are you watching A+? A rightwingnut admits we had a Federal budget surplus under Clinton. :lol:

I am not a rightwing nut. The surplusses were mostly projected but were shot down when the tech bubble bursted. But keep in mind that surplusses are not a surplus. It is important to understand the difference between the debt and the deficit.

You do realize that the tax cuts they passed caused government revenue to shoot up right :)
 
Top