Are we better off?
Offline I'm a Republican. I have been since I was in high school because I am not one who believes in using abortion as a birth control procedure. I have taken many tests and I can only say that my views seem to overlap with Democrats, Libertarians, Green and Independents.
I had a long discussion recently about the current market and the over all economy. In the group was a wide variety of political views, from Republican, Independents, a Communist, Democrats, and a Libertarian.
Of all the people only the Republicans said they were not better off, while the other political party views were varying from we are better to we are doing great. I saw this Republican viewpoint as being a key indicator for a party which is manipulated by, what I call, mass hysteria.
When asked, these Republican people start to make repetitive comments which I constantly hear on FOX, Rush, Beck, Coulter and Romney speeches. These comments consisted of false claims that under Obama our government has caused an addition 4 trillion in debt, a failure of more than 50% in green investment companies, more people out of work than when Obama took office, failure to work with the Congress, over regulation of businesses, a ruined housing industry, a ruined international policy and the ruin of Medicare with the AHCA/PPAC(or Obama care), to name a few.
I was dumbfounded by their comments and when I used my pad to bring up factual information, to which they rejected my facts, insisted that Obama was ruining America and that Romney would save us and the world. I sat and listened as they went on and on about their views, but none of them could support their statements with facts as I asked them to present proof of their claims.
As a real estate agent I can honestly say, "Yes, we are better off now than four years ago". I have watched around the tri-county area of Orlando, housing developments which were previously decapitated be completely rebuilt. I have seen open fields turn in to shopping malls and new developments are sprouting up all over the place. I have spoken to vendors in the construction industry and they have said they are very busy building, but that it isn't they way it was before. I have also found other friends out of work who tell me they can't find a job, but when asked they refuse to take a lower paying job.
I believe that their is a stigmatism with the public. They remember how good it was before the bubble burst and they want what they once had; they refuse to accept the current market and act like a six year old refusing to eat their peas.
I'm also reminded that things really aren't that bad now. My parents remember the Great Depression and have told me of their stories. They remember long soup lines and people in the city living in the streets and having shared apartments with other families. Unemployment was 25%, over 5000 failed banks, 38% homeless and their was the Dust Bowl to contend with in the mid-west. People roamed the country looking for work, willing to do ANYTHING to get a little bit of pay even picking food.
It wasn't until Franklin Delaware Roosevelt came along with the New Deal that the economy recovered. He had an attitude that it was better to put to work 100 men with shovels than to have one man working a bulldozer. He built roads, bridges, dams and increased the infrastructure of our utilities. This is the same thing which Obama has been trying to push through Congress, but because of their attitude to make Obama a "one term President" the bill has sat in Congress, dead on arrival.
I don't think Romney is going to deliberately destroy America but I feel he is the wrong choice for President. He panders to the middle class now that it is close to the election day after a year of pandering the the right wing. I have watched him change is views drastically, such as the "I will repeal Obama care the day I'm elected", which is a lie be case he can't repeal it in that fashion. He also said at one point that he would not repeal it but "make changes".
I just don't get it. Am I the only one who sees the bullshit being played on American voters? Yes, Obama isn't a kick ass President. He could have done better with challenging Congress, but Romney can't possibly be a better choice for the greater good of the country.
- Login to post comments
re:: Well, It happened under his administration.
Preliminary observation, if you ever took a history class. If that something that bad happens falls under an administration. Guess who is to blamed, in the court of public opinion? If your remember the low-economic growth, the 'real' worth of a dollar, unemployment rates being what they were all during the mid/late '70s, in the United states ( e.g. -- Stageflation ), former US President Carter was to blame?
Dana has a unspoken rule, doesnt discuss politics much at all but it is interesting how people view things.
One of the key factors is what happened with housing. Giving out loads to people who had no means to pay. A bit of sight of hand now it was getting triple-A ratings. Now a triple-A rating is supposed to mean there is zero credit risk. So you take something that not only has significant, it has crushing risk. That's why it's toxic. Recall the phrase 'toxic loans'. And you create this fiction that it has zero risk. That itself, of course, is a fraudulent exercise. And again, there was nobody looking, during the Bush years. So finally, only 5 years ago, we started to have a Congressional investigation of some of these rating agencies, and it's scandalous what came out. What we know now is that the rating agencies never looked at a single loan file. Why arent people frying their asses in the court of public opinion ? With the whole housing thing is to make really bad loans, because they pay better. No thought to if this was even a wise move to do so. Then you grow extremely rapidly, in other words, you're a Ponzi-like scheme. And the third thing you do is we call it leverage. Making it easy to qualife to borrow a ton of money, and the combination creates a situation where you have guaranteed record profits in the early years. That makes you rich, through the bonuses that modern executive compensation has produced. Playing games, falsifying an individual's credit rate, or better load availability is nothing more than under-handed deception, shouldnt it be inevitable that there's going to be a disaster down the road ?!?
What Obama has been doing is adding to the national debt to buy votes. So I think the question you need to ask is not whether things are better but is the current system sustainable. Romney isn't much better the only thing positive would be he would cut spending a bit more. The lesser of 2 evils.
Obama is not FDR. He is OK without handing out money for doing nothing except voting for him. The auto bailout was a scandal because he bailed out the unions but not the investors and creditors. He is creating an anti-investment culture with Obamacare and higher taxes as well. It is too easy to move money oversees to have a president that is so set against private investment.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Sorry small Edit (Dana Ed. number of years ago of the congressional investigations into the rating agencies was off)
... neither do democrats.
No. Frankly it's disgusting and shameful. Obama is about as good as Presidents get. He reminds me of many of us, he is a thinker. The right wing media has done nothing but talk down his actions, all while embracing a hypocrisy that should have any intelligent viewer with a memory turning the channel from Fox for good. That so many American voters are susceptible to the brainwashing dishonesty of Fox news (and friends) shows just how unintelligent, naive, and pathetic we are as a people.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
He's not doing it to buy votes, he's following the trend of every President before him. And like the smart investors say, don't bet against America.
Leaders of the world continue to find a way to avoid the rush to gold and the breakdown of all financial systems that folks like you would like to lead people to believe is on the horizon. And they have been doing so for many years. They will continue to do so.
He would cut spending, therefore cut the workforce, and ensure that megacorporations have plenty of tax breaks in the hopes they hire people. Maybe they will... in India.
Romney is the lesser of two evils if you're wealthy.
The op will be on the homepage.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
So the Benghazi mess doesn't scare you? It doesn't bother you that the Obama Adminstration lied to the American people for two weeks? What about month after month of disappointing jobs reports? A lot of those added jobs that Obama boasts about were temporary census workers. That's not a recovery. Record number of people on food stamps and unemployment isn't either.
One of the most annoying things he would do in his four years is simply blame Bush for the problems. It became an internet joke. I rather gamble on Romney who has proven business success than a man who proved to me in four years that he won't admit to mistakes or take ownership.
If all these 'investments' are so great, then what is the explanation as to why greedy capitalists didn't want to make these investments? Why didn't Warren Buffet throw his money in if he loves Obama's plans so much?
The fact is government has become a tool for people to have their lives, life choices and lifestyles subsidized by others. This includes all the recipients of Obama's 'investments'.
I'm not a typical right winger that believes the gold standard is a magic cure. The fact that gold has gone up so much is just a reflection of the fact that smart money people know the current system is unsustainable. The poor and middle class pay the price in inflation while the rich get richer from their gold stash. This is what always happens with massive government debt.
Of course with Obama, investors would rather pay expensive health insurance for unskilled labor than move their money offshore. That's a good one.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
All the workers did is go to work. The ceos fucked the companies up. There you go again scapegoating the working class when the ceos wrecked the car. They don't have unions in the bank loan industry do they? NO but that got fucked up too. Is the housing industry run by unions? NO. But that got fucked up too.
And WE INVESTED OUR tax dollars bailed them ALL out and MADE A PROFIT! Climate at the top caused this mess at the CEO level and if nothing had been doneS 1,000,000 jobs would have been lost but who cares as long as the creditors get paid.
It is a 3 CLASS SYSTEM. It is not there as a ATM machine for Bank CEOS and car CEOS and we are sick of your ilk standing on us and pissing on us when YOUR mindset put us here.
All you advocate is money equals power.
3 CLASSES 3 NOT 1.
You want Big Brother? You'll get it if Romney gets ellected and the Koch Brothers will be our rulers.
You ignore 8 years of Bush and 2 unfunded wars and the casino climate at the CEO level and expect to blow smoke up my ass? You might have been asleep during that time but I wasn't.
Keep typing your bologna every Obama supporter who reads this will be more motivated.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
And where are all these great blue collar jobs he saved at GM and Chrysler? In a modern factory, robots and computers do or will soon do nearly all the work, even sweeping the floor.
Go ahead and apply to work at GM and Chrysler, see what kind of response you get.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
About what? Do yourself a favor and stop watching Fox News.
When Bush got the news about 911 after the 2nd plane hit, he had NO CLUE who it was other than it was obvious to all that it was terrorism. Obama said right after Benghazi that it was an act of terror, But just like Bush, they had several suspects, but could not define who it was even though they had suspects.
Obamas administration had to take time in a FLUID situation which included the prospect of riotors which turned out not to be the case.
WE will never live in a completely safe world. For no westerner in ANY country to be completly safe would be to move to North Korea. If a terrorist wants to harm someone eventually some way somehere in the world they will. Just like 9/11/01. I didn't blame Bush for his lack of intellegence. I blamed him more for the kneejerk reaction afterwords.
Obama THINKS before he uses military. Bush simply responded to his base's John Wayne deplomacy. Romney has that same lack of depth in thought and WOULD put us into another war.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Obama is more interested in power and being the center of attention than money. You don't get to where he is unless you are this way.
He's a commie like Stalin was a commie. They don't care about the workers, only they want to be adored, respected and admired. Power is his drug of choice, he cares for little else.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
THIS isn't a worker robbing the cash register at a 7-11 they work at. This is the Ceo and the creditor burning the 7-11 down and then cashing in on the insurance policy. Then you blame the cop for them burning the store down? HALARIOUS!
The creditors should NOT get their money back and the CEOS are lucky they are not in jail where they should be. Maybe next time they'll think twice before doing stupid risky shit that goes way beyond normal risk.
Risk is one thing and businesses do fail, but when it is beyond normal risk to the point of ruining an entire industry it isn't just the investors or creditors. You rely on workers and the general public being stupid, well, you are wrong.
The investors like the public should be ang y at the CEOS and the creditors setting up the old burn the candle at both end scam.
NOW again, this wasn't just the car companies that bet both sides, the banks and housing industry took that same sucker bet model and we got stuck with it.
Your poor poor CEO crap is old. They lived by their own rules and now they and people like you bitch when they dump their mess on the rest of us? This crap is not fooling anyone any more!
You'd expect me to have sympathy for a CEO that probibly is rich enough not to take social security but the guy on the factory floor would be homeless? Your heart is in the right place, what was I thinking?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Warren Buffet has been throwing his money in. Every drop in the stock market was a buying opportunity to him.
His interview this week on CNBC had nuggets like:
"So the United States economy is not tanking."
"Berkshire Hathaway in 2010 spent six billion on plant and equipment. That was a record."
"We spent last year eight billion on plant and equipment. Another record. This year we'll spend nine billion on plant and equipment, another record. And practically all of that's in the United States."
On the market dropping in the last few days "Maybe in the past week we've done some things. Yeah, we —but basically I like to buy and, you know, so if the market is down, you know, I'm happier buying, I like to buy. If I got to a supermarket and they reduce prices, you know, I feel better. If I got to a men's clothing shop and they've reduced prices, I feel better. So if I go to the stock exchange and they reduce prices, I still feel better."
"In the last week, I bought some Wells Fargo.... But we only have 430-something million shares, so I didn't feel we had enough."
"Well, I do think that under either of the two candidates, either one that becomes president, American business is going to get a lot better over the next four years. I think that in terms of social policies, I think if I were a woman concerned about reproductive rights, I think there could be a very distinct difference. I was concerned about Supreme Court appointments. I think there could be a distinct difference. But in terms of the economy, I think the economy will get better under either one of them."
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
That is not the question I was asking. Why isn't he investing in the same things that Obama 'invests' in like GM, Chrysler, Solyndra, Tesla, etc...
For matter anything the Obama says he invests in? Why aren't the greedy Capitalist clamoring for a piece of the action?
Because he doesn't invest. Government has become nothing more than a tool for special interest to have their live choices subsidized by others.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Actually no. Benghazi doesn't bother me. I'm prior military, so death on the job is always a risk, those who died over there knew this. What happened over there was tragic but it isn't Obama's fault. Want to blame bush for all the Americana's who died while under his command? Please.
Americans don't need to know all the shit going on in the world, especially with our military. Also, he didn't lie. The issue was that the information coming out of Libya was fragmented and we weren't able to get investigators over there; they still aren't allowed. Libya has rules and regulations. Can you imagine some Libyan embassy people dying over here and Libya sending ground troops over to cover the embassy?
Job reports? Really? Try comparing notes with Bush's administration before you want to talk to me about Obama's efforts.
Oh geee. Let's see. We are in a recession. So yes, unemployment and food stamps will rise up... and comparing this to the Great Depression? Really? No. It isn't a record number. The Great Depression was way more worse than it is today. Go check you facts before you claim any thing about records.
Please prove where he SPECIFICALLY stated it was Bush was the cause of the problems. Please do so. It's a lie and you need to stop watching FOX.
Yeah. Proved record? 22% of all the companies Romney invested in were failures.
Obama? He has only 8% failure rate on investments. Romney isn't better, he's worse.
So many people have the wrong information.
Solyndra was a Bush investment, but finished off by Obama because of the overlapping of the administrations.
http://grist.org/solar-power/2011-09-13-bush-admin-pushed-solyndra-loan-guarantee-for-two-years/
A communist? Really. I bet you at one time called him a Socialist and a Marxist and a....
Can't you make up your mind?
Obama doesn't give a shit about power. If he did they he would have crushed Congress for causing America to be stagnant.
He owns 232 million dollars worth of GM.
You make up what you think sounds good as you go along don't you?
Obama and Buffett have completely seperate "investing" goals. Buffett's favorite holding period is forever, Obama is providing money based on a societal need. ROI to Obama is more short term than Buffett.
Your question is like asking, well if Apple is so good why doesn't Bill Gates own it?
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Oh that's really rich. So the Obama Administration DID NOT spend two weeks blaming the attack on a youtube video? Please tell me that becuase I can gladly present audio from Obama and Hilary stating that it did. It was a big fat LIE, and when you have CIA operatives begging for help during the attack, but denied, that's not a case of fragmented information.
Stop watching Fox News? Fine, I'll watch CBS. Took me less than 5 minutes to find this case of Obama blaming Bush. Yet, he continue to spend and spend and spend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU-KYG6MvfI&feature=related
Obama's policies showed a lack of desperation. Did Cash for Clunkers help the economy? NO. Did his Making Work Pay help the economy? NO. In fact, most people I talked to didn't even know that they received a tax cut. That's because it amounted to a pathetic $15-30 less out of your paycheck, and for only one year.
LMAO.
Really? This is what you think is a lie? I bet you think Bush actually spoke to Jesus?
Huh. Get the fucking facts. Libya had rules and they told America "NO GROUND TROOPS". I bet you are one of those elitist colonial fuckers who think it is OK to send troops any where, any time, just because you are fucking American? What would happen if Libya's embassy on American soil was attacked? Would America allow them to land troops on our soil to secure the embassy?
Keep looking for a video and go back and read my previous request.
Did Bush do anything to help the economy? No. He did nothing.
Also, here is a little tidbit for you to choke on:
When a President leaves office, the budget they had in place overlaps by up to two years after they leave. Spending by the Obama administration is not their legislation. It's from the Bush administration. It's from the Republican congress. In 2011, the spending went down for the first time in eight years.
It didn't? Are you saying that the debt was not $10.7 trillion when Bush left office and is not $16.2 trillion now? The only thing false about the claim is that the debt accrued is more than $4 trillion.
An exaggeration but there have been many failures. The main problem is that there is no plan to profit. Even if any of these green companies becomes huge and makes a ton of money the government doesn't get profit, it gets a loan paid back with very small amounts of interest. So the government is taking all of the risk and the profits will go to people who had the right political connections. I think that is rather undesirable, but I'm a radical who thinks that making money should be based on your ability to build a successful business, not on having political connections.
So is the BLS lying to us? http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.htm
Well since no major legislation has passed since the republicans took control he obviously has failed to work with them. Whether that is his fault or theirs is debatable.
Well "over" is a subjective word so it really is an opinion. The fact is that under the Obama administration regulations that business needs to follow have increased dramatically in number. (they also increased significantly under Bush)
Well, dipshit in chief has failed to get us out of Afghanistan like he promised. Guantanamo is still operating. He renewed and strengthened the Patriot Act even though as a Senator he was outspoken against it. Again, "ruined" is a subjective word but Obama has noticeably failed to do many of the things that candidate Obama promised.
I would love to see your "facts" in regard to the so called "lies" you listed above. Not interested in arguing over subjective things like "ruined" but is it or is it not a fact that our national debt has increased dramatically under Bama's watch? Is it or is it not a fact that a smaller percentage of our population is active in the workforce today? Is it or is it not a fact that regulation on businesses has increased dramatically under his watch?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? It seems a short-sighted view of the world. And petty in most instances. People especially in the US are whiners. We are better off than a most of the world and are annoyed we have to pay at bit more at the pump or the cost of food has gone up or too greedy to help a fellow countryman. Meanwhile in other parts of the world people are starving to death and don't even have a roof over their head. It might be what I am going through medically now, but it really pisses me off with this lopsided view and lying especially done by Faux News. Win for winning sake. The ends justifies the means. Lying is OK. The politifacts show Romney is a big liar (praise Jeebus or was that Jeebus Smith), much more than Obama. All I want is the truth. Got my fill of lying when I was a fundie. Enough already.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
a slow decent into fascism. The public is being tricked by being allowed to vote for those in government but it's the few highly rich that will actually be the government. The democratic process makes it look like the rich are separate from the government but govern by proxy through the electeds. Fascism is corporatism. It's the merging of corporations and government.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
It's all a con either way, if Romney wins we get one side of the coin, but if Obama wins we get the other side. Each side is the same, SuperPACs, special interest groups, lobbyists all play in the background and influence the high level decisions of both domestic and foreign affairs.
Keep in mind that for the first two years of Obama's administration, he was living off decisions made by Bush. Yeah, two wars in two foreign countries will do that to ya.
The point is ALL the presidents in the last 30 years have been playing this game. Bush was horrible with the investments. The only time we did any good was during the Clinton years.
Again, we were already on the down slide. The number of people out of work reach an all time high during Obama's years, but where did we start from and who is responsible for the start of the slide?
The Republicans had made a point to make him a one term president. I think that sums up their position. Also, in Orlando there has been a tremendous growth in building and construction projects. Unfortunately the two billion dollar road modifications to I4 are being held back by... non other... wait for it... A republican. Who we all guess is doing so for political reasons.
I disagree about regulations on businesses. I believe there is just as much opportunity for small business owners now than there ever has been in the last twelve years.
Guantanamo is open for obvious reasons. Afghanistan is 2014. I believe the Patriot Act needs to hang around. I'm willing to give up a little bit of my freedom to FEEL more secure. We all know that our borders aren't really safe.
Duh. As I've explained, our debt has gone up because we are paying for two wars. We have been on the down slide for six of the eight years of Bush. We never should have gone in to Iraq. We would be much better off today if we left old loud mouth in power and focused on the important areas of terrorism.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-29/obama-weakened-regulations-at-greater-rate-than-bush-study-says.html
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/
We all tend to look at things from a small perspective than a wider one. We see that people are out of work, but how many variables are at play and how many are we unable to see?
Banks have more money in their coffers now than they have since Clinton and yet getting loans is like pulling teeth from a rhino. Why? Are they holding on to the money because they like the smell of it?
Bush actually inherited a recession from Clinton. The good times under Clinton didn't last long as evident by the dot com bubble. Also, Clinton's policies greased the way for the housing crisis which played a huge role in the Great Recession. Granted, Bush made some bad economic policy decisions, but it is simply not fair to play the entire recession on him.
The war costs are only a fraction of the spending under Obama. Around 1.3 trillion since 2001. Obama spent nearly that much on his stimulus alone. With that kind of money, I would expect a lot more results. Instead we see the unemployment rate barely drop, and some analysts put it more into the double digits because people have gave up looking for work. Obama spent a ton of money to keep people on unemployment for 2 years. What good did that do? Under Obama, they had to raise the debt ceiling twice, and we lost our AAA credit rating status twice. This is a president who has no problem spending like crazy, and adding more taxes.
The other one isn't going to raise taxes then ?
Nope, he plans to cut tax rates by 20%. He will offset the costs by closing the generous loopholes and deductions. I'm all for that since my demographic doesn't benefit from those deductions. By cutting corporate taxes and making America a place to do business in again, more jobs = more tax revenue.
Recession! LMAO! REALLY???? From Clinton! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Oh, so the 30,000 lives lost and the 1.3 trillion (and counting) wouldn't have made things better? I bet so. I bet if you knock off that 1.3 trillion and all the interest we owe on it I'm sure you and the others like you would find some thing else to complain about.
Yeah, let's not forget the 30,000 lives lost and how that has a negative effect on our country.
Ptttthht! The stimulus? Which one? The one from Bush?
I love it how Bush/Romney supports forget that the budget comes from the Congress and the Congress is a Republican one. Oooh boy. They trimmed 38 billion from the 2011 budget. Who's to blame for the problem?
I'm having my classes of American foreign policy. Apparently, where you stand is where you sit. There are liberals (the good), there are neocons (the bad) and there are realists (the ugly AND bad).
Basically, "realists" are something that crawled out of early 19th century Europe, the Metternichian-Machiavellistic power freaks who would ambush a country just because it seems weak and a good loot. They believe that balance of power is a solution to problems. Realists have a bad opinion of human nature, embodying it best themselves. There's one positive point though, realists are careful when using military intervention, just like a corporation is careful with investment. Liberals would spread democracy to those who want it, neocons to those who don't want it and realists would just use the damn bombing drones, which is cheap and efficient.
And apparently, when it comes to actions and foreign policy, Obama is mostly a realist. He did a lot of liberal talk. He also continued in some Bush's neocon practices and religious parades, but acted mostly as a realist, that is, pessimist. He certainly isn't near the left. And didn't deserve the Nobel prize for peace, btw.
Which makes me wonder what the difference would be with Romney. To me, Romney seems also a "realist", close to the center from the right side, plus with some religious neocon talk thrown in for the flavor. There is no difference of intention either, the people who got Obama to bail them out are still there and they will pimp any president you elect. I predict it will be better than GWB's crazy first term, but very similar to his second term. At most, USA will finally withdraw from most of places of conflict and the national debt will grow into new heights today unimaginable, probably without toppling yet, though that remains an interesting thing to see.
It will probably look just like in the film by John Stossel: Is there anything government can't do? Seriously, in my state politicians and their business just steal the tax money without torturing us citizens by funding the opera broadcast.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Agreed, Bush was a complete fuck up. Yet over four years Obama has continued most of Bush's policies and doubled down on many of them. In four years Obama failed to get us out of Afghanistan, instead he copied Bush's Iraq surge and then went and got us involved in another conflict in Libya. He has bragged about how he increased the number of drone attacks which are highly questionable, controversial, expensive and the benefits of them are unclear.
Yes, but we took a recession and expanded it into one of the longest recessions of all time. There is no reason our economy should still be failing to recover and many indicators suggest that there is a strong possibility of a second recession in the near future. Every prediction that Bama and Co. made about the effects of their economic policies have been completely wrong. And has Bama said he is going to do anything different? No.
lol, can you support that statement?
Yeah, because Bama is a liar that is a pretty obvious reason. Why 2014 for Afghanistan? I drank with a soldier a few weeks ago who is being shipped out in the next few months, why is he putting his ass at risk? What national interest do we have in being there for even one more month let alone a couple more years? When he ran for President he said he would get us out immediately. 6 years isn't immediately in my mind.
So the Patriot Act should hang around because it makes you "FEEL" secure? Doesn't matter whether or not it actually makes you more secure? So we can just forget about the justice system and forget about warrants because it makes you feel better? I'm sure the American citizens who are deprived of their civil rights and being held indefinitely without being charged feel perfectly secure inside their jail cells. Why I am sure that members of the Nazi party felt perfectly secure in Hitler's Berlin.
(Although, in fairness Romney isn't getting us out of wars faster nor has he shown any indication of repealing the Patriot Act- vote 3rd party)
The wars are not the sole contributor to our debt as any half-assed look at the budget will tell you. But as I pointed out, Bama failed to end them and increased the scale of Afghanistan and got us involved in Libya. Even completely ignoring defense spending our deficit has grown scary fast. Bama promised he would cut our deficit in half, instead he has doubled it.
And that "cut" that occurred in the 2011 budget you have credited Obama with a couple of times? The cut didn't occur when the budget was initially requested in 2010 for 2011. The initial budget had spending at $3.834 trillion. When Republicans won congress in 2010 many refused to vote for the continuing resolution in April and there was a big fight because the government was going to be shut down. The resulting agreement brought actual expenditures down to $3.63 trillion because those "crazy" Tea Partiers almost shut down the government. So the resulting budget was a slight reduction from 2010's $3.721 trillion budget where the initial budget pushed for by Bama was an increase. And compared to Bush era budgets, both were massive increases- Bush's last requested budget was the 2009 budget which requested $3.107 trillion and actually spent $3.518 trillion due to the bailouts and TARP. The $400 billion was supposed to be a temporary one time thing, however the Obama administration used the $3.518 trillion as a new baseline and added on top of that.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET
Have you seen the interest rates? Banks have no reason to lend right now as they can make almost as much money with no risk by simply sitting on it. Granted, this isn't directly Obama's fault, it lies mostly with that idiot Ben Bernanke, but Obama has the power to remove him and has not. Romney has said he would replace Bernanke, which would be great if he replaced him with someone who wasn't a shill for wall street. If Romney would name who he was going to replace Bernanke with I would consider voting for him on that issue alone. Since he has not, I don't trust him to appoint someone competent. Bernanke was a Bush appointee and renominated by Bama.
Banks are holding on to money because it is more profitable and less risky to do so. Investors have been reluctant to invest because the investment environment is hostile right now.
It is my opinion that the the actions of the federal reserve are the largest factor in causing our recent recession and its actions since then have failed to resolve our core problems. Until we get past our addiction to ridiculously low interest rates our economy will not have a long term recovery.
Oh and from your own damn link.
Perhaps you ought to read past the misleading headline? It simply points out that the OIRA is changing more of the proposed regulations now than under Bush. It also states right in the article that the documents exchanged between the agencies and the OIRA were not released so the claim that the changes were "watering down" the regulations is a guess. A "change" could just as easily be making a regulation stronger. And since Cass Sunstein is the head of the OIRA and has been outspoken in his philosophy that regulations should be used as a soft method of controlling peoples choices, it is safe to assume that the changes are consistent with his stated beliefs.
What we do know for sure are the actual regulations that are published. Which as your article points out are more expensive for businesses and are dramatically higher in number. The regulations for Bamacare have not been published yet, but that bill alone will necessarily create a lot of regulations which will take up thousands of pages and cost companies a lot of money to be in compliance with.
The code of federal regulations is now 169,301 pages from 157,974 pages at the end of 2008. That would be 11,327 pages added under Bama. There were 138,049 at the end of 2000, so Bush added 19,925 in all eight of his years. So slower than Bama, but it does point out the lie about Bush "deregulating". He obviously did not.
Bill Clinton actually regulated far less than either one and in 1996 and 1997 actually dramatically cut the number of regulations. Everyone likes to crow about how great a president Clinton was economically but those people rarely look at what he did. Clinton encouraged free trade (shipping jobs overseas!!!), reformed welfare programs to make them more affordable and less prone to abuse, kept government spending low, balanced the budget and kept a handle on regulations. Basically, Clinton did everything I am called a radical for suggesting we do. Of course, it is likely that Clinton did these actions more out of political expediency and a preference for getting blow jobs over coming up with ideas for regulations, but hey I am more interested in results than motivation. Instead, shallow people simply look at the "D" in front of his name and assume that Bama supports the same policies. He doesn't. Obama's economic policies are much closer to W's than they are to Clinton's.
https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2012/03/CFR-Actual-Pages-published.pdf
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
He's going to close corporate tax loopholes ??
He has claimed he will except for clinging on to the research and experimentation credit and making it permanent. Whether or not anything he is talking about will actually see the light of day is another question entirely. Basically, Romney supports a flatter tax with a broad base. That means the precious poor and middle class will pay a higher percentage of the total tax burden than they currently do.
Some of the wealthy that take advantage of large tax loopholes will pay a bit more, but most people grossly exaggerate the number of deductions and credits the wealthy can take. Most tax loopholes benefit middle class families much more dramatically. The main method the wealthy use to lower their taxes is to switch their revenue from income to capital gains, which Romney is dead set against raising the rate on.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney_resources_2012.cfm
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2012-candidates-tax-plans.cfm
As far as corporate tax loop holes, every time you hear Obama say the word "invest", most often he is talking about one of his programs that gives tax credits for companies that do what he wants- which is usually something to do with green energy. Companies do X and get $Y in a tax credit. This is how some companies manage to pay 0% or very low tax rates, while most pay the corporate tax rate. Romney has publicly been highly critical of such "investing" although his recent words against it are at odds with some of his comments and actions as governor.
Obama has repeatedly promised to provide "incentives" for manufacturing, green jobs, hiring etc. in virtually every single one of his economic proposals. It is quite obvious that he believes in using the carrot of tax loopholes to encourage companies to do what he wants both in his actual policies and his proposed policies. The fossil fuel industry will probably see their carrot disappear though since they are currently out of favor. In general, it is laughably absurd to claim that Obama is against corporate tax loopholes, he proposes them all the fucking time.
Romney is currently speaking out against them but as I pointed out, I don't trust his sincerity on the issue. Bush spoke out against them too and did nothing to even try to stop the practice. Gary Johnson is completely against them and his record as governor demonstrates his sincerity. Vote third party unless you enjoy being part of the dumbmasses and getting screwed by cronyism.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I agree with your assessment that it isn't only the people we elect which are the problem, but those people behind the scenes which are fucking up the world. Those people, behind the scenes, aren't too smart other than for making more money. They suck at being compassionate towards others and they have no humanity left in them.
I just asked a question, and somebody actually gave me an straight answer. Excuse me a second...*squeezes self*....Still there. Wow.
Thanks dude. Appreciated.
Looks like you're right not to trust the guy on loophole closing : http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/how_romney_used_his_churchs_charity_status_to_lower_his_tax_bill/
Just saw a report about Romney speaking out against the new health care law where he keeps saying that the costs of health care will go up $2800 for everyone. Turns out the information is using is from a conservative board which reviewed the "information" their own way. That aside, the actual number is $2400 and it isn't per individual, it's per family, which could go as high as $2400, in larger families but most of the $2400 will be absorbed by subsidies.
http://factcheck.org/2010/11/the-truth-about-health-insurance-premiums/
What bugs me is that he was corrected previously as well, Ryan and other Republican leaders have been corrected. They however keep using the scare aspect of these claims and they keep pushing lies.
It shows me that Romney is a dishonest person. He is still that same bully in high school who cut the hair of another student because he thought he could do what ever he wanted. He'll do or say anything just to get elected even if it is lying his ass off.
Where do you imagine the subsidies that absorb that cost are going to come from? Do you think money just magically appears?
And really, if calling back Romney's high school days and calling predictions about the future costs of a product "lies" then it is no wonder that Romney is going to walk away from this campaign as a convincing winner if not a complete landslide. The bottom line is that no one has a clue how much health insurance premiums have to go up, even the actuaries in charge of determining what rates to charge are throwing darts blindfolded because no one knows how aggressive and effective the government will be at enforcing its edict that everyone purchase insurance and whether or not people will be able to effectively scam the system by going without coverage until they are sick. Also, the government has not published the complete regulations yet. Plus the natural effect of government subsidies always causing prices to go higher because people with a subsidy don't care how much extra an insurance company is charging. So any numbers you hear thrown around should be taken about as seriously as a couple of sports fans in the bar throwing around numbers to prove that their team is going to win the next game.
And if you want blatant lies about numbers you can look at Bama's claims for "jobs created", the $5 trillion tax cut Romney supposedly proposed (I wish), or how he "saved" the auto industry (GM did in fact go bankrupt and Chrysler is no longer an American company). Given his numerous half truths and outright lies it seems a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Politicians play fast and loose with numbers because most voters never bother to really look behind the numbers and understand what they mean. (It is nice though that the Bama team is no longer even trying to pretend that the prices will go down)
Seriously, the Obama campaign has to be one of the most bungling directionless campaigns I have ever seen in my life. They seem to have adopted the tactic of taking a bucket full of mud and spinning in circles like the tazmanian devil. When they do stop to focus on any particular subject it is more often than not something incredibly unimportant and immature. From the early lines of whining about how terrible things were because of Bush and pleas of "we did the best we could", to the classist rhetoric of painting Romney as Mr. Potter, to the ridiculous fear mongering (he is going to take away Big Bird!), mixed with occasional forays into conservatism ("well actually I am going to cut taxes"
all topped with a condescending attitude; the entire campaign has made Obama appear to be a petulant child who was tasked with cleaning his room and when asked why he didn't clean it blames someone else and throws a fit. And that is why Obama is going to lose on Tuesday.
Granted, running the Obama campaign would be a fucking nightmare. The economy sucks and everyone knows it and right or wrong the President always gets the blame/credit for that in the minds of the voters. Obama's main legislation successes were the stimulus (a complete failure), healthcare (widely unpopular right now), and Frank-Dodd (something most people don't understand). As far as foreign policy it is hard to say what he has done differently than Bush and that is illustrated by the circle jerk that was the foreign policy debate. He has been far more neo-con than he has been pacifist and focusing on the issue would just anger those in his base who have actual minds rather than simply vote for the "D". And there really isn't a lot of dirt on Romney, he hasn't been in politics long, just one term as governor. There are a few things to attack there but not a ton simply because in four years as governor you don't have time to do much. As a businessman he was very successful and made more companies successful than he drove into the ground.
imo, Bama should have gone hard left in his campaign. He should have come out and said "you know what, our system isn't working. I thought that we could make minor changes but it isn't enough. It is time to reform the whole system and that is what I will do in my second term." And then proceeded to release plans for the most progressive leftist overhaul or our economy we have seen since the New Deal and ran his campaign arguing for progressivism and not even pretending to be centrist. Propose a living wage, cradle to grave government care, breaking up large corporations, perhaps outlaw mega corporations owning several small companies in the same industry, put on a maximum wage cap etc. All that bullshit that progressives think is a magic bullet. Then pound the pavement and argue for it passionately. I think that type of campaign would have had a chance. Just my 2 cents. Perhaps I will be eating crow if Bama wins but I really think he has handed Romney the presidency on a silver platter.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Conversations about loopholes are almost always incoherent because every American politician claims they want to close unnamed loopholes but when it comes to specifics they suddenly support them. Like in Romney's own plan it simultaneously claims to close loopholes while suggesting we keep the one for "research and experimentation" because we all agree that it is good for companies to research and we want to encourage them to do so. Sure, but I'm sure we can all agree it is good for oil companies to find new oil right? So a credit for that too. Hey, it is good for companies to hire veterans so lets have a credit for that. Oh, and we want to provide incentives for companies to stay in the US so lets have a credit for building factories in the US... and on and on.
Next thing you know you have thousands of credits- the companies that take advantage of them don't use one loophole, they use hundreds of them. And on their own, most people would probably say "yeah, that sounds like a good idea" to most of them because they encourage companies to do things that most people in society consider good. As governor, Romney supported many laws that offered various credits to attract manufacturers to his state, imo there is no reason to believe he won't support similar laws on a national scale.
I remember last year on veterans day I made a post bitching about a law that was passed that gave employers a tax credit for hiring veterans. I was jumped on by the leftists as uncaring and unsympathetic to veterans- the very same people who bitch about corporations taking advantage of loopholes. WTF do you think a tax credit for hiring veterans is? And why would you support creating them if you don't want companies to use them? It is completely irrational because many (most?) Americans simultaneously hold conflicting views on the subject depending on how it is phrased and whether it is talked about at the micro scale or the macro scale.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Believe you want... Obama speaks consistently about is views and plans.
Romney is all over the place with his promises. One week he was saying he was going to repeal Obama's health care law, the next week he said he would keep it and change a few things, then he change his plan again and said he would repeal it.
But that isn't the worst of it. Romney is making promises his mouth can keep. He WILL NEVER REPEAL Obama's health care bill on the first day of office. He keeps saying that over and over again. If that doesn't prove my point about this pin head I don't know what will. HE WILL NEVER REPEAL IT ON THE FIRST DAY OFFICE.
He's the greatest panderer I've ever seen run for office. He is just spurting shit out to every class, every race, every creed, every sex just make himself seem perfect to every one. He doesn't give a shit if he is lying and he just wants to be President. It will be his crowning achievement for his miserable bully rich life. He will finally prove to himself that he is a special person and that god wanted him to be here.
And yes, that same kid who cut the hair off a fellow classmate is still in that body. He never grew up. He never matured. He claims he will take on China and win. HAHAHAHAHAHA. What a fucking lie. He thinks he will take on Iran? Bullshit. Talk about putting us in to debt. What a crock of shit.
This guy is a walking lie factory and voting for him means you are a fucking idiot.
lol. I agree that Romney has been inconsistent. I also agree that there is no way in hell that health care reform is going to be repealed, we are stuck with that cluster fuck for a long time. What I find amazing is your apparent blindness towards the large gap between the words and the actions of your own pet candidate. It isn't only you, it is quite typical that people are motivated to support a candidate through blind hatred of the other guy rather than an honest appraisal of their own candidate.
Remember Obama promised to "cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8 He hasn't even made an honest attempt at addressing the deficit. Probably very similar to Romney's promise to repeal healthcare. Politicians make all kinds of promises that they either can't or have no intention of keeping- do you think Bama has kept his campaign promises? My only objection to you is that you seem completely blind to your pet candidates shit. Your main argument to support your guy is that Romney is evil.... ok so what? That isn't going to convince me because the choice isn't between Obama and Romney, I have a bunch of other options and Romney isn't anywhere near the top of my preference list.
Couldn't have said it better myself. And you are going to vote for him aren't you? Or more likely probably already have considering how far up Bama's ass you are. It is because of idiots like you that we trade an idiot with a "D" for and idiot with an "R" and back again every few years. You are simply a hack that is swooning over what Bama says while ignoring what he does. It is kinda sad, but I was there once to. I engaged in all sorts of rhetoric to defend "my" guy and when I had no defense I attacked the other guy mercilessly. You bend the truth slightly and then pound the propaganda over and over until you even start to believe it yourself. Pull your head out of Bama's ass and look at reality.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Beyond your words are hollow and I am damned glad Cristy is doing the right thing finally. There is absolutely NO WAY NJ has the funds by itself to clean this mess up. Investment is going to get the ball rolling but it will be the WORKERS who do the actual work.
It is just sad that it took this to wake people up. I have never felt that the private sector should be scrapped. I have never wanted a nanny state. But even if this disaster had not happend we have fallen behind in investment compaired to other western nations and I do not think it takes low wages like china has to compete.
You continually fail to see that those on the left DO value individualism but individualism that is responsive to a healthy economy because it doesn't push others further down. If you don't take care of what is outside the physical building you own or work in that eventally will affect you as well.
What happened now is a Pearl Harbor in the form of a storm. Back when we were attacked by Japan THOSE business owners worked with government and invested and because of that investment we defeated them and even after those business people continued that cooperation with government to make the economy stable and grow.
Business can and should do the right thing now and Cristy seems to get it now. I just wish it had not taken this to wake people like him up.
There is one single neighborhood in NY that hit union firemen and cops, 100 pluss houses, but if we left it up to your mindset youd say "screw em". Not me, no one, no one from the store clerk to the fireman to the business owner can escape this disaster and it will take all of us to do our part to recover. But that cannot and I refuse to accept a country that leaves anyone in an economic spiral out of some stupid sense of inteitlement to power because they have money.
It is sad that this happens but now more than ever "poor poor me" comming from you is not only a joke but selfish narcissism. "Your on your own" will not work and there are flooded places where all classes live and there are simply times in history where you cant and should not say "fuck em, I got mine".
There is nothing that can stop nature, but if 30 years of "fuck em" hadn't lead us to this mess we would be in a much better position to recover much more quickly. The reality is that we are humans first, not class not political, but humans first, something your mindset refuses to get.
I do see some positive signs from SOME like GM who finaly realize they made a mistake took the help and are now humble enough to actually defend workers and WANT to keep jobs here and grow jobs. But that is one company and the entire climate should be like that. THAT will be the key to our recovery, when investment in the worker grows.
But the Koch brothers dont get it and Nick Hanour does and even NJ Governor now gets it. More and more people are getting wise to the fearmongering the narsiccists at the top sell. We have felt helpless for far too long but are now standing up to the bullies with money. Now all those business owners in NY AND NJ will have NO CHOICE but to accept that someone is going to drive that cement truck, fix those tellephone and electric wires. Some laborors are going to have to clean the debries and roads and fix the subways. WORKERS are going to do the actual work.
No different than a home with a couple living in it, inequity does not change that the parts even if not equal still need to work together. When those people have full time jobs and pay that they can live off of the economy will get better.
Beyond you will be on the losing side of history. I would suggest you remove yourself from your bubble and stop assuming that the label "business owner" means you should always side with the top. You've already admitted to me that business owners do not always think alike, so I would merely suggest that there IS a better way to get a healthy economy than "let them eat cake".
I look at the devistation of NJ and things like the private business of the boardwalk amusement park, but unlike you, I don't simply cry for the owners of that park, the ride employees who run them and maintain them, and the game employees and hot dog and cotton candy employees ALSO are a part of that.
We all do better when we all work together and invesment is only one aspect, but not the only aspect, so when a business owner says "I built that", no, you had an idea and paid other people to build it. We value the idea people, but they do not value the people they pay.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Wow, look in the mirror. You write a paragraph of ad-hom rhetoric and claim you used to engage in rhetoric?
- 7 respect points from me.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Yet another example of Romney's campaign playing dirty pool.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitt-romneys-ohio-auto-ad-triggered-political-showdown/story?id=17617082#.UJLpt2eN7To
Romney never should have been nominated for the GOP. His nomination shows the GOP is fucking wacko.
I've seen that video before and I know of his broken promises; but his "promises" were because he was ignorant. You won't find any of his broken promises which weren't made with out complete sincerity. He's went to DC thinking he was going to make massive changes, but when he got there he found out that Republicans wouldn't work with him. That's why Gitmo is still open and why we have raised our debt to 14 trillion.
In order for any person to have become President in 2008 and cut the deficit in half they would have to pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. They also would have had to stop helping out the auto industry and the banks from closing. They would have had to cut all the services and then raise our taxes by 25%. Not even the plans from Romney would have saved America better.
I blame the GOP more than I blame Obama for any thing. They are douche bags. They would cut the legs out from under the middle class just to get Obama out of office. This is why the GOP and their extremist supporters all claimed they would make him a one term president. It's the same reason why they claimed that making voting harder for blacks, poor and students would secure Pennsylvania for Romney.
Romney is the lowest of the low. He's a wealthy elitist extremist who looks down on the rest of society. He lies his fucking ass off just so he can have a special plaque or trophy on his mantel at home with the words "President of America, Mitt Romney", along with all the pictures of other dignitaries shaking his hand at the White House on his walls. He wants to be invited to the special parties with the other Presidents when he gets older and he can write his memoirs and feel special.
So Obama was just ignorant and naive (one of the campaign points Mccain tried to use in 08) but Romney knows everything and therefore must be lying? (despite having far less experience in the public sector than Obama did) If anything I would think that Romney comes from a background where one would expect him to be a little naive. As a businessman he is used to simply decreeing things and having them done. As president you have far fewer dictatorial powers.
Kind of like his promise to grant waivers to states to ignore the healthcare law which is a move I suspect the courts will overrule him on. I know Obama has allowed waivers for various portions of the law but those were for the purpose of giving the parties more time to get into compliance with it, not to ignore it completely as Romney has suggested. And as much as I hate Bamacare, I believe such an authoritarian action is and should be illegal and if Romney actually does it I will support the court fight against it. I am kind of surprised and a little concerned that no one has made an issue of Romney declaring he is going to ignore the law. No president should have the power to pick and choose which laws are enforced and a candidate making ignoring a law a campaign point is very concerning to me.
And when Obama got to D.C. he had a full two years- one half of his term- where democrats had a commanding majority in both the house and the senate. So why didn't Obama bring our troops home immediately? (something he promised to do and I supported), why didn't he make a proposal that cut spending and raised taxes to close the deficit? (something else I support) Bill Clinton did when he was faced with a deficit, AND he did it with a republican controlled congress. A republican congress that was far more right wing than the one we have today in my estimation. I would give him credit if he had at least proposed a plan that closed the deficit and had it shot down in congress. The fact is, he never did. The most he did was suggest the creation of a commission which created a plan that he ignored. He either has no intention of cutting the deficit, or he is incompetent.
Cutting the deficit is one issue I believe there is some reason to have confidence in Romney. On the state level he did close a very big deficit using a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Hopefully he will do the same thing on the national level so we can get something worthwhile out of his presidency, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Somehow I have a hard time seeing Romney running around to a bunch of parties. He never struck me as the partying type. We know Obama likes to party. If I am having a party I'm inviting Bama and leaving Mittens at home. You invite Bama and you get a few celebrities and some home brewed beer, I have no idea how Romney parties but I know it doesn't involve alcohol, smokes or sexy women.
And yes, the GOP will do anything to make Obama a one term president. And in four years the DNC will be doing anything to make Romney a one term president. That is what they do and the purpose of their existence. It isn't personal, it's politics and it is a messy dishonest business.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I find this particular scuffle very interesting because traditionally it is the left that screams hysterically about every company that has a plant in China is "shipping" American jobs overseas. Meanwhile, the right usually argues that opening factories overseas has little to no negative effect on the number of American jobs. I side solidly with the right on this argument. Exporting manufacturing is a net gain for the US and is something we should be happy about. Cheap goods from China is what allows our poor to enjoy a very high standard of living and has made our country wealthier in real terms.
It is clearly hypocritical of the Romney campaign to run that ad, especially given Romney's historical association with companies that operate factories in China. It is also hypocritical of the Obama campaign to attack the ad when it is making the very same argument about Chrysler that the Obama campaign is making about Romney. Really, this Chrysler ad is exactly the argument the left has been making for decades. Funny how the left suddenly realizes how wrong the argument is simply because it is coming from Romney. Meh, politics, I hate it but I have to admit I still love it as much as I try not to care.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
lol, touche. Old habits die hard and a good mudslinging, muckraking argument brings it out in me- it is just so much fun.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Did I say anywhere that we shouldn't help them out? Did I say anywhere "fuck em, let'em die"? Have I said anywhere "poor poor me"?!?!?!? Nice field of straw men.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
We finally agree on a subject.