Interesting "Candidate-Agreement" site...

[TTQ B4U]

Well I can agree with almost all of that, I guess. I wouldn't say it's "silly" to point out that China only owns 10% of our debt; I also wouldn't say that I'm minimizing it, merely pointing out that the reality isn't as bad as the perception. If that seems minimizing to you, then I may suggest it's because the Republican party has been so effective at painting China out to be an economic boogeyman.

 

I'm not saying it's silly, I'm saying 10% is greater than 1/16th that is all.

 

Mitt Romney standing up in the debate and saying, "We need to ask ourselves if it's worth borrowing this money from China" is misleading; he should be saying "if it's worth borrowing 10% of this money from China."

He's stating should we as a country be running our business with the "need" to borrow anything. The reality is it doesn't make sense. We've all said it, the gov't can't control spending and he's simply agreeing. Borrowing isn't the solution, especially continuing to do so at this point. Moving Forward means living within our means.

 

But it's in his best interest to create an enemy, even if that means misleading everyone. You yourself said you didn't realize that the percentage of our debt owned by China was that low.

He's not creating an enemy and I'm not sure where I said I was surprised that the debt they owed was that low?

 

I also don't think that pointing out that we could borrow money to pay off China is "asinine." That's too strong of a word for what I admitted was a dumb suggestion. In any case, will you agree that this...

Why would we borrow to pay off China? That's like paying off one credit card with another?

[TTQ B4U]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-21/fiat-says-china-may-build-all-jeep-models-as-suv-demand-climbs.html

 

The Bloomberg report came out 2-3 days before that Washington Examiner piece, so the white house has nothing to do with it.

 

 

I'm saying that for them to come back so quickly to clarify their statement or mis-statement is pretty fishy. But I'll give Jeep the benefit of the doubt that they are just clarifying things and won't read into why.

[jeffro]

You are very resilient, pdgdpdpspdpgpdp.

[greg1647545532]

I'm not saying it's silly, I'm saying 10% is greater than 1/16th that is all.

 

How big is our national debt? Is it 11 trillion or 16 trillion? Seems to me that everyone wants to use the bigger number, except for now, in this one instance, where you want to use the smaller number so that China's percentage of it looks bigger.

 

Otherwise, point taken.

 

I'm not sure where I said I was surprised that the debt they owed was that low?

 

You didn't, my post was responding to JuicedH22.

 

Why would we borrow to pay off China? That's like paying off one credit card with another?

 

In the very sentence you quoted I called it a dumb suggestion myself.

 

eta: My point is just that it's not an asinine suggestion. Paying off one credit card with another is a perfectly reasonable strategy if one credit card has a much higher rate. I just paid off my mortgage with a brand new mortgage at a lower rate, and I don't think that was asinine. If the US decides that having China own our debt is too much of a liability for whatever dumb reason, then we can pay them off by borrowing money. This wouldn't be an option if China owned a much larger percentage of our debt like some people think; we couldn't borrow 8 trillion to pay them off, for instance. Or at least I don't think we could.

[Fiji ST]

http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/185360296.jpg

 

 

Surprising amount of Libertarians popping up.

[TTQ B4U]

How big is our national debt? Is it 11 trillion or 16 trillion? Seems to me that everyone wants to use the bigger number, except for now, in this one instance, where you want to use the smaller number so that China's percentage of it looks bigger.

 

Technically, it's $16T but in discussions about the impact of our debt as it relates to foriegn gov'ts and their benefiting from it, it makes sense to key in on the fact the money's we've borrowed from other nations. Peter paying paul isn't as relevant and impacting as Peter paying http://c.ooi1.com/img/c/paul%20jp.png aka Mandarin for Paul.

 

 

eta: My point is just that it's not an asinine suggestion. Paying off one credit card with another is a perfectly reasonable strategy if one credit card has a much higher rate.

makes sense but as noted, China traded their debt into Gov't Notes which carry the least amount of interest but are more secure. Even they traded a bit of interest to insure we pay up.

 

If the US decides that having China own our debt is too much of a liability for whatever dumb reason, then we can pay them off by borrowing money.

Won't need to as the rates are low. In the end, Obama hasn't put us anywhere near a position of paying anyone off. We're so far the opposite that it's not funny and in reality not worth evening playing hypotheticals with. That's the key point of this election; if Obama actually knew how to fix the economy in terms of driving demand, controlling spending and reducing debt, he would have done it. It's been four years and he hasn't.

[greg1647545532]

You seem to agree with me that China owning a portion of our debt isn't something we need to worry about or make a priority.

 

[TTQ B4U]

You seem to agree with me that China owning a portion of our debt isn't something we need to worry about or make a priority.

 

 

 

Not true. We're absolutely not helping our economy by borrowing money from them. Did you miss the points I've made about how it's allowing them to be way more competitive in the market than even us? Not to mention how it's driving them to buy our companies and technology interests. We're not doing ourselves any favors at all. We are subsidizing the faster-growing, second-largest economy in the world that competes with us world wide.

 

Also, the bottom line is we are borrowing nearly $.50 of every dollar we spend and Obama isn't slowing down the spending and his idea of fixing it is saying he's going to tax only wealthy (which is BS)? Such a poor way of doing business but again, not surprising.

[Mallard]

I'm saying that for them to come back so quickly to clarify their statement or mis-statement is pretty fishy. But I'll give Jeep the benefit of the doubt that they are just clarifying things and won't read into why.

Reading the Bloomberg article (the original source), it was pretty clear to me, but I also recognized that it would be easy for people to spin. Maybe they just didn't say it elegantly enough.

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20121026/BUSINESS01/121026036/Obama-Chrysler-Romney-s-claim-of-Jeep-outsourcing-to-China-is-false?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

[JuicedH22]

I want to remind you, it is OBAMA that is doing all of this, it is/was Congress. Obama just helped by agreeing and not trying to block it.

 

I would say the majority of the blame for our financial turmoil goes to the 110th and 111th Congress.

[TTQ B4U]

Reading the Bloomberg article (the original source), it was pretty clear to me, but I also recognized that it would be easy for people to spin. Maybe they just didn't say it elegantly enough.

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20121026/BUSINESS01/121026036/Obama-Chrysler-Romney-s-claim-of-Jeep-outsourcing-to-China-is-false?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

 

 

I agree, the original wording was poor and as you noted could have been more elegantly stated.

 

I like the link and how they point the finger at Romney for falsely claiming, blah, blah....when 1,234 other sites and people did the exact same thing. That's pure spin.

[TTQ B4U]

I would say the majority of the blame for our financial turmoil goes to the 110th and 111th Congress.

 

Keep in mind though that as POTUS, he's supposed to provide visions and have the ability to influence others (congress) to do more than they would do on their own. Leaders influence thoughts, emotions and actions of those working for them and with them. (congress).

 

It's clear they don't feel he has credibility nor has he earned their trust and respect. With how he's governed thus far, again, no surprise.

[kshymkiw83]

http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/185509621.jpg

[greg1647545532]

Not true. We're absolutely not helping our economy by borrowing money from them. Did you miss the points I've made about how it's allowing them to be way more competitive in the market than even us? Not to mention how it's driving them to buy our companies and technology interests. We're not doing ourselves any favors at all. We are subsidizing the faster-growing, second-largest economy in the world that competes with us world wide.

 

All well and true, but I still don't think you'd make paying off China a priority, would you? It's much less important than eliminating our deficit and paying off our debt in general, wouldn't you agree?

 

Also, the bottom line is we are borrowing nearly $.50 of every dollar we spend and Obama isn't slowing down the spending and his idea of fixing it is saying he's going to tax only wealthy (which is BS)? Such a poor way of doing business but again, not surprising.

 

And then you just go on a rant about Obama, when I wasn't talking about Obama at all. Again, not surprising.

[TTQ B4U]

All well and true, but I still don't think you'd make paying off China a priority, would you? It's much less important than eliminating our deficit and paying off our debt in general, wouldn't you agree?

 

 

• IMO priority one is to balance the budget and get spending under control. That includes ditching Obamacare and put in place a plan to pay down the debt. That will also inspire international confidence.
  
• Next he needs to address the fiscal cliff. Doing nothing will cause a recession.
  
• Next we have to create demand and get the GDP Going. Fix trade and address what China is doing to manipulate the market.
  
• That will lead to more demand thus more production to cover growing demand
  
• Do the above and companies will begin to have far less uncertainty and begin to spend and hire with the cash they are sitting on.
  

It's no different than your personal budget. It isn't until the engine is restarted that you can begin paying down debt.

 

And then you just go on a rant about Obama, when I wasn't talking about Obama at all. Again, not surprising.

 

Correct because it needs to be said. Nice guy, great speaker, slightly less professional in his arrogance that stems from some hidden belief that he's some great POTUS which he's not but yeah, worth ranting about until he's gone.

[Mallard]

I agree, the original wording was poor and as you noted could have been more elegantly stated.

 

I like the link and how they point the finger at Romney for falsely claiming, blah, blah....when 1,234 other sites and people did the exact same thing. That's pure spin.

Anyone can write something on the internet. He's in a position, and has the staff to fact check his sources. He simply said it to fuel the fire.

 

P.S. isn't it ironic the Mitt Romney stands in front of a crowd of workers and tries to incite them by saying their jobs are being outsourced to China?

[greg1647545532]

You ranted about Obama while responding directly to my complaint that you rant too much about Obama. Brilliant! Again, not surprising.

[JuicedH22]

I love this...

http://acrossthestreetnet.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/national-debt-elmo-2012.png

 

Here is the point I am making

http://blogs.fayobserver.com/blog.fayobserver.com/media/blog-whatyouthink/DebtinTrillions.jpg

 

Look where the bend in the knee is, it's 2007-2008 after the 110th Congress held so much majority that even bills that were veto'd by the president could be passed with an override thanks to a 2/3 majority...

[TTQ B4U]

Anyone can write something on the internet. He's in a position, and has the staff to fact check his sources. He simply said it to fuel the fire.

 

Chicken or egg, his staff is running a campaign and is relying on the fact that if the President of a manufacturer let's what he said get out with less than clear wording to be "spun" by thousands of sources (Again, Romney and his campaign aren't alone) then I call more foul on the guy who made the statements and turned away when they were put out there.

 

WTF was he thinking to even mention this type of news now anyway? Really? Can't it wait 2 weeks? That in itself is suspicious. Was this whole thing a 1-2 set up to try and catch Romney? Makes me scratch my head as timing and wording like that don't align with being smart. Or perhaps it was smart and well played....too bad the world catches on quick these days.

 

It's all right up there with Obama, Biden and his entire staff hiding the 9/11 Libya terrorist attack that was televised to them via live video from Drones and communicated to them over and over real-time via emails that very night. Yeah.....it was some YouTube movie and a protest..... IMO That single event is proof that the Commander and Chief is a liar and not to be trusted. Nor is he capable of insuring our own people are kept safe which during the last debate he himself said is his #1 job as President. :dumb:

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

 

P.S. isn't it ironic the Mitt Romney stands in front of a crowd of workers and tries to incite them by saying their jobs are being outsourced to China?

Not at all. Especially when the fact that Obama's campaign claims about Bain and Mitt have been beaten to death and proven not true. Besides all that, in the end, captial investment companies are not out to protect the welfare of employees who's jobs even prior to their stepping in, were doomed to begin with. They save companies and in some cases need to whack jobs. That's a fact.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/

 

What's ironic is that under Obama, a key US Company like this was bought by a foreign gov't. and that under Obama we continue to borrow money from our #1 competitor in the market and spend more and more money while our GDP sits idle with barely a pulse. But hey, at least the market for Jeeps is strong as hell.......IN CHINA!

Edited October 26, 2012 by TTQ B4U

[TTQ B4U]

You ranted about Obama while responding directly to my complaint that you rant too much about Obama. Brilliant! Again, not surprising.

 

and you've consistently avoided the real subjects and facts presented. We're even.

[JuicedH22]

Oh, we're talking fear lies? What about hte Obama campaign saying that employees of a coal mining company were told they had to support a Romney campaign event or they would lose their jobs? Only for those coal miners to make a video saying "how dare you say we were forced to be there?" I saw that 'reply' commercial and thought "boom, roasted!"

 

Reminds me of that old woman in ohio where they used her interview against her in an ad, then she fired back with a commercial calling htem out...

[JuicedH22]

I found someone who said this, and I liked it...

 

"This is NOT a political message, but rather a clarification to remind us all of the correct facts.Remember that on October 9, 2007, 11 months before our “economic crisis” occurred (that was actually created), the Dow hit it

s highest point ever, closing at 14,164.53 and reaching 14,198.10 intra-day level 2 days later. Unemployment was steady at 4.7%. But things were already being put in place to create the havoc we’ve all been experiencing since then. And it all started, as this email explains, on January 3, 2007.I'm sending this to each of you regardless of your party preferences because I believe it is something you may not have considered.This tells the story, why Bush was so “bad” at the end of his term.Don't just skim over this, it's not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, which was the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.At the time: The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77 The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% The Unemployment rate was 4.6% George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTHRemember the day... January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!Unempl oyment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th"

[Mallard]

Chicken or egg, his staff is running a campaign and is relying on the fact that if the President of a manufacturer let's what he said get out with less than clear wording to be "spun" by thousands of sources (Again, Romney and his campaign aren't alone) then I call more foul on the guy who made the statements and turned away when they were put out there.

 

But even when the language was cleared up he continues his spin of misinformation, trying to scare workers in those key area's. This is my probem with politics in general. The campaigns are shady as hell, spreading false propaganda, which they have been confronted on, yet they continue to run the ad's. At one point Romney's campaign said "we will not let this election be decided by fact checkers" in response to the factcheck.com web site...yet they use links to it in their ad's when it suits them. It's like he lies to your face, you tell him that you know he is, and the response is 'I know but it doesn't matter.'

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/opinion/mitt-romney-versus-the-automakers.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

 

 

 

What's ironic is that under Obama, a key US Company like this was bought by a foreign gov't. and that under Obama we continue to borrow money from our #1 competitor in the market and spend more and more money while our GDP sits idle with barely a pulse. But hey, at least the market for Jeeps is strong as hell.......IN CHINA!

The entire automotive market is strong in China and you CANNOT SELL vehicles in China unless you build them there.

[TTQ B4U]

But even when the language was cleared up he continues his spin of misinformation, trying to scare workers in those key area's.

 

IMO they should still be scared. The company has been a mess since 2007 and even with the bailout that the taxpayers still haven't been made whole on they were very mismanaged and ended up in bankruptcy.

 

 

The entire automotive market is strong in China and you CANNOT SELL vehicles in China unless you build them there.

 

Sounds like someone needs to "get tough with China" :gabe:

[iwishiwascool]

So who do you think is going to win it Tim?